Ex Parte REBESCHI et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 5, 2017

12878612 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 5, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/878,612 09/09/2010 Thomas J. REBESCHI 66756US002 5307
32692 7590 12/07/2017
3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY
PO BOX 33427
ST. PAUL, MN 55133-3427
EXAMINER
MORALES FERNANDE, BENJAMIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2624
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/07/2017 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
LegalUSDocketing@mmm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS J. REBESCHI, BILLY L. WEAVER,
and BROCK A. HABLE
Appeal 2017-006043
Application 12/878,612
Technology Center 2600
Before BARBARA A. BENOIT, AMBER L. HAGY, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 2, and 4—20. Claim 3 has been cancelled.2 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify 3M Company as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
2 Pending claims 4—7 depend, directly or indirectly, from cancelled claim 3.
See App. Br. 11 (Claims App’x). In the event of further prosecution, the
Examiner and Appellants should address this issue.
Appeal 2017-006043
Application 12/878,612
Introduction
Appellants describe their invention as relating
to touch-sensitive devices, particularly those that rely on a
capacitive coupling between a user’s finger or other touch
implement and the touch device, with particular application to
such devices that are capable of detecting multiple touches
(from fingers and styli) applied to different portions of the
touch device possible at the same time.
Spec. 1:17—21 (Field of the Invention).
Claim 1 is illustrative, shown here with a disputed limitation in italics'.
1. A touch sensitive system comprising:
a touch panel comprising transparent capacitive sensing
medium including a plurality of drive electrodes and a plurality
of receive electrodes arranged to form a matrix and an
insulating layer arranged between the plurality of drive
electrodes and the plurality of receive electrodes, the matrix
having a plurality of nodes defined by areas where the drive
electrodes and the receive electrodes traverse one another;
a stylus drive unit configured to provide a stylus drive
signal to a stylus electrode;
a stylus sense unit configured to generate stylus response
signals from the stylus electrode, the stylus response signal
comprising a differentiated representation of a sensing medium
drive signal, the amplitude of the differentiated representation
being responsive to the coupling capacitance between the stylus
electrode and one of the plurality of drive electrodes, the stylus
sense unit comprising receive electronics that are capable of
resolving the location of a stylus tip relative to an unresolved
axis;
a touch panel drive unit configured to generate a touch
panel drive signal and deliver the touch panel drive signal to the
drive electrodes in the touch panel one at a time;
a touch panel sense unit configured to generate, for each
stylus drive signal delivered to the stylus electrode, touch panel
2
Appeal 2017-006043
Application 12/878,612
response signals for the plurality of receive electrodes in the
touch panel, an amplitude of each of the response signals being
responsive to the coupling capacitance at the associated receive
electrode in the touch panel;
a measurement unit configured to measure or receive
input indicative of each of the amplitude of the stylus response
signals and the amplitude of the touch panel response signals
and to determine therefrom the position of the stylus electrode,
if present, on the touch surface,
wherein the touch sensitive system is configured to be
switchable between distinct stylus receive and stylus drive
modes, the operation of the stylus drive unit being associated
with the stylus drive mode, and the operation of the stylus sense
unit being associated with the stylus receive mode.
App. Br. 10 (Claims App’x) (formatting adjusted).
Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 4—9, 11, 12, 14, and 20 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jang et al. (US 2011/0122087 Al; May
26, 2011) and Westhues et al. (US 2012/0050207 Al; Mar. 1, 2012). Final
Act. 4—12.
Claims 10 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Jang, Westhues, and Appellants’ admitted prior art
(AAPA). Final Act. 12—13.
Claims 15 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Jang, Westhues, and Murakami et al. (US 5,923,320; July
13, 1999). Final Act. 13-14.
Claims 16—18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Jang, Westhues, and Tagawa et al. (US 5,410,329; Apr. 25, 1995).
Final Act. 14—15.
3
Appeal 2017-006043
Application 12/878,612
ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Jang teaches the disputed
limitation of “wherein the touch sensitive system is configured to be
switchable between distinct stylus receive and stylus drive modes, the
operation of the stylus drive unit being associated with the stylus drive
mode,” as recited. Final Act. 6 (citing Jang, Fig. 5) (emphasis omitted).
Appellants argue the Examiner errs because “Jang is incompatible
with switching between distinct stylus receive and drive mode[s]. Instead,
Jang teaches that when an electric field sensor is included in an active stylus,
the electric field sensor operates simultaneously with the electric field
emitter.” App. Br. 6 (citing Jang || 91—93, Fig. 5); see also id. at 7
(explaining that in Jang’s disclosed embodiments, “the transmitting and
receiving function are always active since the transmitted signal is
dependent on the received signal” (additionally citing Jang 1137, Fig. 8)).
Appellants further contend
one of ordinary skill in the art would not have modified Jang to
be switchable between distinct stylus drive and stylus receive
modes because this would require changing the principle of
operation of Jang. In particular, separating transmit and receive
functions into distinct modes would not [be] compatible with
Jang’s stylus in which the electric field sensor operates
simultaneously with the electric field emitter.
Id. at 7.
The Examiner responds that in Jang, under the broadest reasonable
interpretation, “transmitting and receiving are [distinct] operations since they
are different from each other.” Ans. 14. The Examiner finds that Jang’s
disclosure of sequential driving of lines teaches distinct transmit and receive
operations, because the sequential driving “means that the response signal
4
Appeal 2017-006043
Application 12/878,612
[is] sent after receiving the drive signal.” Id. at 15 (citing Jang | 52). The
Examiner further finds that in Jang, after sensing a result from a drive signal,
“a new signal [is] generated and then transmitted to the panel[, and] those
[two] actions are [distinct] actions happening at different times and [are]
distinctive since they are 2 different operations.” Id. (citing Jang || 90—96).
The Examiner also finds transmitting and receiving with the active stylus in
Jang uses a single electrode (antenna) and, therefore, “signals have to
alternate between sensing and receiving” or else “the signals will collide in
which case the data will be unreliable.” Id. at 15—16.
Appellants reply that the Examiner is factually wrong, because
sensing in Jang clearly takes place “when the driving signal is applied.”
Reply Br. I3 (citing Jang || 90-93, 98—99, 118—19, Figs. 5, 6A, 7A); see
also id. at 1—2 (additionally citing Jang || 64—65, 97, 116—17, Fig. 7B). We
agree with Appellants.
As a threshold matter, we disagree with the Examiner’s interpretation
that because transmitting and receiving are distinct operations in Jang, they
correspond to claim l’s “distinct stylus receive and stylus drive modes.”
Claim 1 requires that “the touch sensitive system is configured to be
switchable between distinct stylus receive and stylus drive modes”
(emphasis added). Regardless that transmitting (driving) and receiving are
distinct operations, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood that
claim 1 does not encompass a system in which receiving a signal from a
stylus always occurs simultaneously with transmitting a corresponding drive
3 The Reply Brief does not have page numbers. We treat its four pages as if
they were sequentially numbered 1^4.
5
Appeal 2017-006043
Application 12/878,612
signal to the stylus, because there is no switching between a receive mode
and a drive mode in such a system. Cf. Reply Br. 3^4.
We also agree with Appellants that Jang in fact discloses an active
stylus that drives and senses simultaneously, i.e., that Jang teaches only a
single mode that combines driving with receiving. See Reply Br. 1—2. The
Examiner errs in finding sequential driving of the driving lines in the touch
screen system of Jang necessitates separate drive and receive modes. The
sequencing of drive lines is a separate issue from sensing a response while
the stylus provides a drive signal. As points are sequentially processed
during sequential line driving in Jang, there is simultaneous driving and
measuring of a response to determine the effect of the stylus at each point.
We also agree with Appellants that skilled artisans would have understood it
is fundamental that simultaneous transmitting and receiving can use a single
antenna. See Reply Br. 2—3.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of
claim 1. For the same reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of
independent claim 20, which includes commensurate limitations (see App.
Br. 12—13 (Claims App’x)) and stands rejected on the same basis (see Final
Act. 12). We also, accordingly, do not sustain the rejection of dependent
claims 2 and 4—19.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4—
20 under § 103(a).
REVERSED
6